Leavenworth Battles CoreCivic in Court Over Controversial ICE Detention Center Plan

A City in Kansas Is Suing Over a Planned ICE Detention Center

Leavenworth, Kansas, a city with a complicated history regarding incarceration, has become the epicenter of a new legal and political battle over immigration enforcement in the Midwest. The controversy centers on a 1,000-bed facility previously used as a federal prison, now slated to reopen as an immigrant detention center under a contract between CoreCivic—a private prison company—and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)[1][2]. This development has ignited fierce opposition from local leaders and residents, culminating in a series of lawsuits challenging the facility’s reopening.

Background: The Leavenworth Facility’s Troubled Legacy

The Leavenworth facility, operated by CoreCivic for nearly three decades, was shuttered in 2021 after years of scrutiny. A 2017 audit by the U.S. Department of Justice documented chronic understaffing and a pattern of preventable drug use, injury, and death among inmates, especially during an 18-month period that overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic[1]. Former staff and inmates corroborated these findings, raising deep concerns about the facility’s safety record and management.

Despite these issues, CoreCivic has sought to repurpose the complex as an ICE detention center, aiming to increase capacity in line with national immigration enforcement priorities[1]. The move has been framed by the company as a response to federal demand, but for Leavenworth, it has reopened old wounds and raised new questions about oversight, local control, and the broader direction of U.S. immigration policy.

The City’s Legal Challenge: Permits and Local Control

In late March, the city of Leavenworth filed suit to halt CoreCivic’s plans, arguing that a special permit was required to reopen the facility, since it had not housed inmates in over three years[1]. City leaders insisted that their opposition was not about immigration policy per se, but about ensuring adherence to local development and permitting regulations[2]. As David Waters, a lawyer for the city, put it, the case is “about following the permitting process and not about ‘immigration policy, writ large’”[2].

This legal maneuver set off a complex jurisdictional battle. Initially, the city sued in federal court, only to be told by a U.S. District Court judge that they had not established the necessary grounds for federal involvement, leaving the matter to be resolved at the state level[1]. In June, a state district judge sided with the city, issuing a temporary injunction that required CoreCivic to obtain the disputed permit before proceeding[2].

CoreCivic’s Response: Economic Incentives and Legal Appeals

CoreCivic, for its part, has vigorously defended its right to reopen the facility without additional permitting. The company maintains that, having operated the site for nearly 30 years, it is not subject to new requirements simply because of a change in the type of detainees involved[2]. Ryan Gustin, CoreCivic’s senior director of public affairs, stated, “We maintain the position that our facility, which we’ve operated for almost 30 years, does not require a Special Use Permit to care for detainees in partnership with ICE”[2].

To address community concerns and bolster its position, CoreCivic has also offered a suite of economic incentives: a one-time $1 million impact fee, a $250,000 annual fee, an additional $150,000 annual payment to the police department, and over $1 million in annual property taxes[2]. The company has emphasized the economic benefits, noting that more than 1,600 people have applied for the 300 available jobs, which offer a starting salary of $28.25 per hour plus benefits[2].

Community Concerns: Safety, Oversight, and Social Impact

Not all residents are swayed by the economic arguments. Some in Leavenworth worry about the risks associated with a large immigrant detention center in their community, including fears—sometimes stoked by misinformation—that undocumented immigrants could be released locally[2]. CoreCivic has repeatedly stated that its agreement with ICE strictly prohibits such releases, but skepticism remains.

Underlying these anxieties is a broader concern about the facility’s prior track record. The documented issues with safety, staffing, and management have left a lasting imprint on the community’s trust. For many, the prospect of reopening the facility—regardless of the detainee population—raises questions about accountability and the potential for repeating past mistakes[1][2].

Broader Implications: Local vs. Federal Power

The Leavenworth case is significant not just for what it means to one Kansas town, but for the precedent it could set nationally. Cities across the U.S. are grappling with the balance of local control versus the federal government’s authority over immigration enforcement. If Leavenworth is ultimately compelled to accept the ICE facility despite its objections, it could limit the ability of other localities to shape the character and future of their own communities through zoning and permitting laws[1].

Conversely, a victory for Leavenworth would signal that municipalities retain meaningful leverage over projects that have national implications but local impacts. As battles over immigration enforcement continue to play out at every level of government, the outcome in Leavenworth will be closely watched by policymakers, activists, and private prison operators alike.

Conclusion

Leavenworth’s lawsuit against CoreCivic’s planned ICE detention center captures the intersection of local governance, private prisons, and the evolving landscape of U.S. immigration policy. With high stakes for the city’s future—and potential ripple effects far beyond Kansas—the fight over this facility is about much more than a permit; it is a test of who gets to decide what happens in America’s communities[1][2].

Original source: The New York Times – A City in Kansas Is Suing Over a Planned ICE Detention Center